CHAPTER XXX

SOCIALISM AND ANARCHISM

Socialism is, on the whole, hostile to the State. All Socialists hate

the State as at present constituted, because it protects the property

which they wish to seize. However, many Socialists hate not only the

State in its present form. They have become doubtful whether private

capital or the State is the greater evil. They long for liberty, and

would not welcome the restraint of any State, and least of all that of

the absolute, all-regulating, and constantly interfering Socialistic

State. Hence many Socialists have become Anarchists. Socialists may be

divided into two classes--Communists and Anarchists--and Prince

Kropotkin, the foremost Anarchist leader living, described the two

Socialistic sections as follows: "A section of Socialists believes

that it is impossible to attain Socialism without sacrificing personal

liberty on the altar of the State. Another section, to which we

belong, believes, on the contrary, that it is only by the abolition of

the State, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by

free agreement, association, and absolute free federation, that we can

reach Communism."[1073] Many Socialists, seeing the enemy rather in

the State than in private capital, express their passionate hatred of

the State: "The State at present is simply a huge machine for robbing

and slave-driving the poor by brute force."[1074] "The Parliament ever

cries for more money, more money for the service of the State. Just

heavens! Of what service is the State? Of very little service to

honest, industrious men,"[1075] The philosopher of British Socialism

frankly confesses himself a revolutionary Anarchist: "As an

international revolutionist I have always been strongly sympathetic

with all movements for local autonomy as most directly tending to

destroy the modern 'nation' or centralised bureaucratic State."[1076]

"It is quite true that Socialism will have to take over the accursed

legacy of existing national frontiers from the bourgeois world-order;

but Socialism will take it over merely with the view of killing it off

and burying it at the earliest possible moment. The modern nation or

centralised State is a hideous monstrosity, the offspring of

capitalism in its various phases; in its present shape the outcome of

the developed capitalism of the great industry. We quite admit that in

form it may, and probably will, survive the earlier stage of

Socialism, but its ultimate disappearance is none the less certain.

The sentiment of the national patriotism will then, let us hope, be

reduced to its last expression--the holding of annual dinners, or some

harmless festivity of this sort, such as is affected by the natives of

certain English counties resident in the metropolis. The Nationalist

movement, therefore, is an old Radical 'plank' which clearly no longer

belongs to us as Socialists."[1077]

The Socialist-Anarchist hates State government in every form. To him a

Social-Democratic State is quite as hateful as any other form of

government: "The State is the evil, the inveterate foe of labour--be

the Government Autocratic, Bureaucratic, or Social-Democratic. For

what, after all, is our vaunted nose-counting, majority-ridden

Democracy but an expansion of the old-time tyranny of monarch and

oligarch, inasmuch as the Governmentalist, whatever his stripe, is

doomed to act on the two root principles of statecraft--force and

fraud? And, obviously, so long as that is so, his particular profession

of political faith is almost a matter of indifference."[1078] "What

was, what is the State, wherever it exists, but a community of human

beings barbarically held together by a well-drilled gang of

magistrates, soldiers, policemen, gaolers, and hangmen?"[1079] Mr.

Blatchford, who is apparently never quite sure in his mind whether he

is a Socialist, a Communist, or an Anarchist, gives voice to his

Anarchist sentiments in the words: "Rightly or wrongly, I am opposed to

godship, kingship, lordship, priestship. Rightly or wrongly, I am

opposed to imperialism, militarism, and conquest. Rightly or wrongly, I

am for universal brotherhood and universal freedom."[1080]

Another influential Socialist writer exclaims: "What is freedom but

the unfettered use of all the powers which God for use has

given?"[1081]--a sentiment which is heartily endorsed by all

Anarchists. However, the unfettered use of all powers means that the

will of the individual, not the will of society, is the supreme law.

It means the denial of the supremacy of society, the State,

government. Similar sentiments are expressed with greater energy and

greater fulness by many Socialist writers. Mr. Davidson, for instance,

says: "In the new order every man (woman, of course, included) will be

his own legislator. In the state of ultimate and universal freedom to

which we aspire, when the greatest of all tyrants, poverty, is slain

and plenty sits on the throne which the lean monster has so long

usurped--it may well be that there shall be no necessity for any law

except that which the purified conscience of every individual man and

woman will readily supply. Then will have come the true Golden Age,

the millennium of Christian Anarchism."[1082]

The claims, programme, and aims of Socialism and Anarchism are

curiously alike. Prince Kropotkin, the leading exponent of Anarchism,

writes: "Anarchy appears as a constituent part of the new philosophy,

and that is why Anarchists come in contact on so many points with the

greatest thinkers and poets of the present day. In fact, it is certain

that in proportion as the human mind frees itself from ideas

inculcated by minorities of priests, military chiefs, and judges, all

striving to establish their domination, and of scientists paid to

perpetuate it, a conception of society arises, in Which conception

there is no longer room for those dominating minorities. A society

entering into possession of the social capital accumulated by the

labour of preceding generations, organises itself so as to make use of

this capital in the interests of all, and constitutes itself without

reconstituting the power of the ruling minorities. Acknowledging as a

fact the equal rights of all its members to the treasures accumulated

in the past, it no longer recognises a division between exploited and

exploiters, governed and governors, dominated and dominators, and it

seeks to establish a certain harmonious compatibility in its midst not

by subjecting all its members to an authority that is fictitiously

supposed to represent society, not by trying to establish uniformity,

but by urging all men to develop free initiative, free action, free

association."[1083]

There is little difference between the Anarchism of Proudhon,

Bakounin, and Kropotkin, and the Socialism of many British Socialists.

The economic doctrines of Socialism and Anarchism are practically

identical. Socialism has taken the most important doctrines from

Proudhon,[1084] and, owing to the similarity of their views and aims,

Socialists and Anarchists are commingling and fraternising. Anarchists

see in Socialists a wing of the great Anarchist army of destruction,

and Socialists see in Anarchists associates and friends and partners

in the revolution and general pillage which both movements equally

strongly desire to bring about. Therefore a leading Fabian Socialist

tells us: "Kropotkin is really an advocate of free Democracy, and I

venture to suggest that he describes himself as an Anarchist rather

from the point of view of the Russian recoiling from a despotism

compared to which Democracy seems to be no government at all, than

from the point of view of the American or Englishman who is free

enough already to begin grumbling over Democracy as 'the tyranny of

the majority' and 'the coming slavery.'"[1085] If Kropotkin is a

"Democrat," then Ravachol, Vaillant, Henry, Pallas, and Bresci were

also merely Democrats.

British Anarchists are closely watching the British Socialist Labour

movement, which they wish to lead into Anarchist channels. Thus we

learn from an Anarchist monthly: "The question of the position to be

taken in relation to the labour movement is certainly one of the

greatest importance to Anarchists. It does not suffice for us to form

groups for propaganda and for revolutionary action. We must convert as

far as possible the mass of the workers, because without them we can

neither overthrow the existing society nor reconstitute a new one. And

since to rise from the submissive state in which the great majority of

the proletarians now vegetate to a conception of Anarchism and a desire

for its realisation, is required an evolution which generally is not

passed through under the sole influence of the propaganda; since the

lessons derived from the facts of daily life are more efficacious than

all doctrinaire preaching, it is for us to take an active part in the

life of the masses and to use all the means which circumstances permit

to gradually awaken the spirit of revolt, and to show by these facts

the path which leads to emancipation. Amongst these means the Labour

movement stands first, and we should be wrong to neglect it. In this

movement we find numbers of workers who struggle for the amelioration

of their conditions. They may be mistaken as to the aim they have in

view and as to the means of attaining it, and in our view they

generally are. But at least they no longer resign themselves to

oppression nor regard it as just--they hope and they struggle. We can

more easily arouse in them that feeling of solidarity towards their

exploited fellow-workers and of hatred against exploitation, which must

lead to a definitive struggle for the abolition of all domination of

man over man."[1086] Anarchists therefore constantly try to influence

the British Socialist Labour movement. When, for instance, in the

autumn of 1907 the possibility of a railway strike was being discussed,

Anarchists did their best to bring about a revolutionary struggle: "The

railway crisis must have shown very clearly that if the men had but the

will, they have the power to bring about at any time a revolutionary

situation in the struggle of labour against capital. Some day they will

have to do this, for the conditions of the conflict will leave them no

choice. They will perhaps learn also that the glorification of a man

like Bell--whose fooling of their cause is his method of

advertisement--means putting powers into one man's hands that no man

ought to possess. Nothing could be more absurd than the prolongation of

this 'crisis' which has been done so that one man might have the centre

of the stage, while hundreds of thousands of men toil on in suspense.

Bell is everything: the workers are mere cyphers. Yet this man is

mistrusted by many; and everyone knows how on occasion he can join the

feast of the directors and be one of them. And if generalship were

needed, what an ass this would be to attempt to lead the men to

victory! Successful strikes are never made by the farcical tactics of a

Bell. Recognition, forsooth! They'll recognise you when you strike.

Workers, watch your leaders!"[1087]

In view of the connection existing between British Socialism and

Anarchism, it is but natural that Socialists have become the

apologists of Anarchism. "The vulgar notion that Anarchism is a

synonym for disorder is as nearly as possible the reverse of the

truth. It is Governments and Laws that do all the mischief. They

produce the very evils they pretend to remedy."[1088] "Verily the

State is the evil. Back to the land. Back to the simple life. Away

with Governments, palavers, Dumas, and Courts of Law. Long live the

Commune."[1089]

Anarchists contend that the "Social Revolution" for which most

Socialists strive will become an Anarchist revolution: "If the workers

succeed by revolt in destroying the mutual insurance society of

landlords, bankers, priests, judges, and soldiers; if the people

become masters of their destiny for a few months, and lay hands on the

riches they have created and which belong to them by right--will they

really begin to reconstitute that blood-sucker, the State[1090]?" "On

the day when ancient institutions splinter into fragments before the

axe of the proletariat, voices will be heard shouting: Bread for all!

Lodging for all! Right for all to the comforts of life! And these

voices will be heeded. The people will say to themselves: Let us

begin by satisfying our thirst for the life, the joy, the liberty we

have never known. And when all have tasted happiness we will set to

work; the work of demolishing the last vestiges of middle-class rule,

with its account-book morality, its philosophy of debit and credit,

its institutions of mine and thine. 'While we throw down we shall be

building' as Proudhon said, 'we shall build in the name of Communism

and of Anarchy."[1091] Anarchists are authorities on revolutions. Very

likely Prince Kropotkin's view is right.

There are two kinds of Anarchists: Philosophic Anarchists who

propagate their views by speech and pen, and Anarchists of action who

propagate their views by dynamite and dagger, and the former are

responsible for the crimes of the latter. Many British Socialists

defend not only philosophic Anarchism, but also that form of Anarchism

which finds its expression in murder.

Leading British Socialists refer, for instance, to the four

Anarchists, Spies, Fischer, Engel, and Parsons, the heroes of the

Chicago bomb outrage, who were responsible for the death of six

policemen and for the wounding of about sixty, and who were hanged in

November 1886 in Chicago, as "martyrs,"[1092] and British Socialists

are urged to follow the glorious footsteps of the Chicago Anarchists:

Then on to revolution, boys! Keep Freedom's highway broad.

The path where Spies and Parsons fell--as fearlessly they trod;

And though we fall as they fell--millions follow on the road,

To carry the Red Flag to victory.[1093]

The sympathy which British Socialists feel for the Chicago Anarchists

arises from the similarity of their aims. The programme of the

American Anarchists was, according to the Pittsburg proclamation, as

follows:

(1) Destruction of the existing class rule, by all means, _i.e._ by

energetic, relentless, revolutionary, and international action. (2)

Establishment of a free Society based upon co-operative organisation

of production. (3) Free exchange of equivalent products by and between

the productive organisations without commerce and profit-mongery. (4)

Organisation of education on a secular, scientific, and equal basis

for both sexes. (5) Equal rights for all without distinction of sex or

race. (6) Regulation of all public affairs by free contracts between

the autonomous (independent) communes and associations resting on a

federalists basis.[1094]

The attitude of many leading British Socialists towards the murdering

of monarchs and statesmen may be gauged from the following extracts:

"On the occasion of the assassination of any potentate or statesman,

the public opinion of the possessing class and its organs is lashed up

to a white heat of artificial fury and indignation against the

perpetrator, while they have nothing but approbation for the

functionary--military or civil--who puts to death a fellow-creature in

the course of what they are pleased to call his duty. Evidently force

and bloodshed, when contrary to the interests of the possessing class,

is a monstrous crime, but when it is in their favour it becomes a duty

and a necessity."[1095] "We believe the 'potting' of the 'heads' of

States to be a foolish and reprehensible policy, but the matter does

not concern us as Socialists. We have our own quarrel with the

Anarchists, both as to principles and tactics, but that is no reason

why, as certain persons seem to think, we should put on sackcloth and

ashes, and dissolve ourselves in tears because, say, M. Carnot or the

head of any other State has been assassinated by Anarchists. What is

Carnot to us or we to Carnot, that we should weep for him? We do not

specially desire the death of political personages, while we often

regret their slaying on grounds of expediency, if on no others. But at

the same time Socialists have no sentimental tears to waste over the

heads of States and their misfortunes. To the Socialist the head of a

State, as such, is simply a figure-head to whose fate he is

indifferent--a ninepin representing the current political and social

order."[1096]

We're low, we're low, we're very very low.

And yet when the trumpets ring.

The thrust of a poor man's arm will go

Through the heart of the proudest king.[1097]

The "Socialist Annual" contains in its calendar pages numerous items

under the heading "For the Working Class to Remember," which is

filled with Socialist dates such as "birth of Mr. Blatchford," and

with the records of the most conspicuous Anarchist, Nihilist, and

Revolutionary crimes. Details regarding the deeds of Orsini and

Louise Michel, Jack Cade and Wat Tyler, the execution of Louis XVI.

and Marie Antoinette, the assassination of Presidents Lincoln,

McKinley, and Carnot, the attempt on King Alfonso, and other facts

are there recorded--"for the working class to remember." Earlier or

later the Socialist-Communist-Anarchist agitation in Great Britain

may, and very likely will, lead to Anarchist outrages.

FOOTNOTES:

[1073] Prince Kropotkin, _Anarchism_, p. 16.

[1074] B. Shaw, _The Impossibilities of Anarchism_, p. 24.

[1075] Davidson, _The Democrat's Address_, p. 15.

[1076] Bax, _Paris Commune_, p. 35.

[1077] Bax, _Essays in Socialism_, pp. 98, 99.

[1078] Davidson, _Christ, State, and Commune_, pp. 16, 17.

[1079] _Ibid._ p. 6.

[1080] Blatchford, _God and My Neighbour_, p. 195.

[1081] Thompson, _That Blessed Word Liberty_, p. 13.

[1082] Davidson, _The Old Order and the New_, p. 172.

[1083] Kropotkin, _Anarchism_, p. 8.

[1084] Brockhaus, _Konversations Lexikon_, vol. i. p. 578.

[1085] Shaw, _The Impossibilities of Anarchism_, p. 26.

[1086] _Freedom_, November 1907.

[1087] _Freedom_, November 1907.

[1088] Davidson, _Christ, State, and Commune_, p. 22.

[1089] _Ibid._ p. 31.

[1090] Kropotkin, _Anarchism_, p. 19.

[1091] Kropotkin, _The Wage System_, p. 15.

[1092] See Leatham, _Lives of the Chicago Martyrs_.

[1093] _Social-Democratic Federation Song Book_, p. 35.

[1094] Bliss, _Encyclopedia of Social Reform_, p. 63.

[1095] Bax and Quelch, _A New Catechism of Socialism_, p. 31.

[1096] Bax, _A Short History of the Paris Commune_, p. 78.

[1097] _Independent Labour Party Song Book_, p. 33.

British Socialism An Examination of Its Doctrines, Policy, Aims and Practical Proposals · 第 30 / 37 章